On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:36:40 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Akihiro Sagawa sagawa.aki@gmail.com writes:
In this try, I divided the previous patch into two pieces because the test was failed on Alexandre's 64-bit environment due to some uncertain reason. With this series we can figure out failure points. If part 1 (this patch) is failed, existing table is broken. Otherwise, additional entries trigger failures.
Of course now it's no longer failing, even with all the patches ;-)
Thanks. I'm happy to hear that :-) I'm going on refining next (was [8/8]) patch.
Akihiro Sagawa